Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 39 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Madras High Court
G.Narayanasamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.32121 of 2006


G.Narayanasamy						... 	Petitioner

versus 

1.State of Tamil Nadu 
   Rep. by its Secretary to Government
   Higher Education Department
   Fort St. George, Chennai  600 009.

2.Director of School Education
   Chennai  6.

3.Chief Educational Officer
   Tuticorin.							... 	Respondents


PRAYER: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.1755 of 1998 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.No.10394/A2/97 dated 03.09.1997 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the applicant at Rs.2000/- from the date of appointment. 


		For Petitioner	:	Mr.M.Hidhayathullakhan

		For Respondents	:	Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam
						Government Advocate 
* * * * *

O R D E R

The Original Application in O.A.No.1755 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.

2.The petitioner is a degree holder of B.Sc.(Agriculture). He was appointed as a Double Part Time Teacher on 17.08.1987 in Vocational Subject in Crop Protection at Government Higher Secondary School, Kovilpatty. The Government took a policy decision to regularise the services of the persons who were working as part time teachers. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as regular Vocational Teacher on 16.10.1992 and he was given the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600. Ever since his appointment, the petitioner is taking classes for plus one and plus two students.

3.The Higher Secondary System was introduced in the State of Tamil Nadu during 1978-79. The Vocational Teachers in Crop Protection working in the Higher Secondary Schools were given the scale of pay of Rs.1160-1950 in the V Pay Commission, while the Post-Graduate Teachers handling plus one and plus two students were given the scale of Rs.1820/-. Hence, they made a representation to redress their grievances. The One Man Commission granted the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500 to the Vocational Teachers. The same was implemented in their case from 01.06.1988, the date of implementation of the recommendations of the V Pay Commission.

4.There are also Vocational Teachers who were in employment prior to the introduction of the plus two system. On introduction of the plus two system, they were absorbed as Vocational Instructors in the Higher Secondary Schools. They were also possessing B.Sc.(Agriculture). On absorption, they have also been paid Rs.2000-3500 scale from 01.06.1988. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent to grant him also Rs.2000-3500 scale from 16.10.1992, the date on which he was regularised in service. His request was rejected by the third respondent by the impugned order dated 03.09.1997.

5.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.1755 of 1998 (W.P.No.32121 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order dated 03.09.1997 of the third respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to fix the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500 from the date of his regularisation. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations.

6.Heard Mr.M.Hidhayathullakhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is carrying out the similar work as that of other Vocational Teachers/Instructors employed in Higher Secondary Schools. He further submits that the petitioner is liable to be transferred in places where the Vocational Teachers/Instructors are employed and who are getting the scale of Rs.2000-3500. According to him, since all are doing identical work, the respondents are not justified in discriminating the double part time teachers who were regularised subsequently from 16.10.1992 as Vocational Teachers. He has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the only reason given in the impugned order is that the double part time teachers, who were in receipt of Rs.900/- were given the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600 on regularization and the other Vocational Teachers, who were in receipt of Rs.1160-1950 were given the scale of Rs.2000-3500. The reason given in the impugned order is that since the petitioner belongs to the category of double part time teacher before regularization, he could not claim the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 read with Section 39 (d) of the Constitution.

8.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate seeks to sustain the impugned order.

9.I have considered the submissions made on either side. The petitioner is having educational qualification as that of other Vocational Teachers/Instructors i.e. B.Sc.(Agriculture) and he was appointed as regular Vocational Instructor on 16.10.1992. Admittedly, the petitioner is doing the same work as that of other Vocational Instructors. He is handling classes for plus one and plus two students. This is not in dispute. Hence there is no justification for the respondents to deny the scale of pay applicable to other Vocational Instructors. There cannot be two sets of Vocational Instructors drawing the different scale of pay and doing the same and similar work. This is opposed to well accepted principle of equal pay for equal work. Such a discriminatory action of the respondents are clearly opposed to Article 14 read with Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. It has been well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court that Article 39 (d) has to be read into Article 14 of the Constitution and that the State cannot discriminate in the matter of pay when the employees are doing the same and identical work.

10.In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order dated 03.09.1997 granting a different scale of pay to the petitioner, while he is discharging the same and similar duties as that of other Vocational Teachers/Instructors. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The first respondent is directed to grant the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500 to the petitioner with effect from 16.10.1992, the date on which he was regularised as a Vocational Instructor. The first respondent is also directed to pay the monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11.The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.

05.01.2010 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sri To

1.The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai  600 009.

2.Director of School Education Chennai  6.

3.Chief Educational Officer Tuticorin.

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.

sri W.P.No.32121 of 2006 05.01.2010